No, it doesn't. The Q stands for quality. 16xQ is a form of multisampling, Coverage Sampling Anti-Aliasing to be exact (CSAA) and is available only on 8 series cards and above. Quincunx is something entirely different. 2xQ is the only Quincunx mode and as far as I can tell is no longer available. It's generally considered to be outdated now.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
2xaa v 4xaa
- Thread starter bcham
- Start date
No, it doesn't. The Q stands for quality. 16xQ is a form of multisampling, Coverage Sampling Anti-Aliasing to be exact (CSAA) and is available only on 8 series cards and above. Quincunx is something entirely different. 2xQ is the only Quincunx mode and as far as I can tell is no longer available. It's generally considered to be outdated now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 5,239
- Location
- London
same here m8, at 1280x1024 i cant tell at all the difference between 2 and 4. but between 0 and 2 is amazing. even at 640x480 2 and 4 to me makes no difference.
Ah right - LOL!
Hmm, interesting, didn't realise that. Knew the ...xQ modes all used to refer to Quincunx but didn't realise they'd changed the meaning of it with the 16xQ mode. NVidia's obfuscation department up to their usual tricks I see.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,464
Anyone who cannot see any difference above 2x (I know people are talking 2xvs4x,but many seem to imply they've gone higher),needs their eyes sorting.
Set 2x at 640x480, now set 16Q.
Honestly if you can see no difference, SOMETHING (either your eyes or your screen) is not working right.
Set 2x at 640x480, now set 16Q.
Honestly if you can see no difference, SOMETHING (either your eyes or your screen) is not working right.
yep i got clocked for the typo on the quinthingy. good thing nvidia seems to have abolished it and now the Q = Quality. safer too.
english is s dodgey language, half the time words are written as they are pronounced and vice versa.
english is s dodgey language, half the time words are written as they are pronounced and vice versa.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
The higher the RES the less AA matters.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 11,117
- Location
- West Yorkshire / Market Bosworth
everyone has already said it but yes, aa/af matters more at lower res.
example: you can experiment with this. by setting your res to something like 800x600 and then fiddling with AA, and of course if you can try a high res like 1440x900 or above. so on 800x600 you might find 4xaa is better. but using 1440x900 2xaa may do the same effect.
it really all depends on your monitor res and your graphics card.
example: you can experiment with this. by setting your res to something like 800x600 and then fiddling with AA, and of course if you can try a high res like 1440x900 or above. so on 800x600 you might find 4xaa is better. but using 1440x900 2xaa may do the same effect.
it really all depends on your monitor res and your graphics card.
I think what the OP is meaning is they can't see a difference when playing COD between 2xAA and 4xAA (obviously at a decent resolution). In-game, I think that's understandable.
That's a far cry from looking hard at the screen at the 640x480 and 2xA/16Q, although I agree with the statement - I think everyone would be able to see the difference.
Those who claim to always use 2/4/10283292xAA and nothing else, well that's just stupid. I'd never sacrifice being able to play a game at higher graphical detail than having AA. e.g. I'd never choose to play Crysis on Medium at 4xAA over High (or even V.High) at 0xAA.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 5,239
- Location
- London
I couldnt tell the difference between 2 and 4 at 640x480 on cod4
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
I game at 1920x1440 on a high end CRT, I would not be down at 800x600 or lower lol.
I put the AA to whatever the highest setting in the games Menu allows.
I put the AA to whatever the highest setting in the games Menu allows.
On older cards before programmable sample patterns came along, it was often a lot harder to tell the difference between 2x and 4x. 4x ordered-grid sampling is barely better than 2x rotated-grid yet needs twice as many samples!
Nowadays both ATI and NV use rotated grid for their default 4x setting.
Having said that, it really does depend on the geometry in the scene that's getting antialiased...
If you're bored, read this white paper by commisioned by 3dfx, contains a lot of good stuff:
http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/divers/v5-6000/datasheets/FSAA.pdf
Nowadays both ATI and NV use rotated grid for their default 4x setting.
Having said that, it really does depend on the geometry in the scene that's getting antialiased...
If you're bored, read this white paper by commisioned by 3dfx, contains a lot of good stuff:
http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/divers/v5-6000/datasheets/FSAA.pdf
Also a good read
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_11.html
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_11.html
I was amazed my SLI 8800m GTX could play TF2 maxed out with 16xQ
It's not that amazing.. I run TF2 with 16Q on a single 9600GT
Of all the games I play, TF2 really needs the AA - I can tell the diff between 16AA and 16QAA - wheareas in a game like audiosurf, 4xAA looks just grand
